↓ Skip to main content

Subgroup analyses on return to work in sick-listed employees with low back pain in a randomised trial comparing brief and multidisciplinary intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Subgroup analyses on return to work in sick-listed employees with low back pain in a randomised trial comparing brief and multidisciplinary intervention
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-12-112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina M Stapelfeldt, David H Christiansen, Ole K Jensen, Claus V Nielsen, Karin D Petersen, Chris Jensen

Abstract

Multidisciplinary intervention is recommended for rehabilitation of employees sick-listed for 4-12 weeks due to low back pain (LBP). However, comparison of a brief and a multidisciplinary intervention in a randomised comparative trial of sick-listed employees showed similar return to work (RTW) rates in the two groups. The aim of the present study was to identify subgroups, primarily defined by work-related baseline factors that would benefit more from the multidisciplinary intervention than from the brief intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 12 6%
Other 42 22%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 13%
Social Sciences 15 8%
Psychology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 50 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2011.
All research outputs
#6,685,474
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,273
of 4,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,068
of 113,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#12
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 113,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.